Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Nate Silver and the 538 blog

Nate Silver Elections 2012 538 blog NYTimes

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#21 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:35 PM

View PostNick, on 03 November 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 03 November 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Quote

Most people do not object to requiring some form of identification at the polls.   What people do object to is a well funded, coordinated effort on the far right...
Look at that... 74% of the country are on the "far right".

He just said that most people (including myself) don't object to requiring ID.  Your link confirms as much.  The only thing I object to is pushing new requirements through right before a major election.  Phase it in by notifying and giving people ample opportunity to acquire whatever IDs they need, and you'll have no argument from me.
He DID say most people don't object to requiring ID. He then said they DO object to a coordinated effort to make sure that happens. That makes absolutely no sense.

As for "phasing it in"...the objections to voter ID law have been making the rounds for a very long time. In fact my link is to an article that appeared back near the beginning of August. There simply is no logical argument against requiring ID to vote. But that didn't stop a slew of race baiting politicians from telling minority constituents the GOP wanted to re-introduce poll taxes.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#22 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:15 AM

View PostMr. Synystyr, on 03 November 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 03 November 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

Sounds like this Republican official believes(as I do)that taking steps to ensue every vote is a legal one...indeed favors the GOP. But of course, under today's truly sick political rubric...asking for an ID is a sinister and racist attempt to steal elections.

If there were evidence of Democratic voter fraud, I would agree with you.
There is evidence of devastating  Democrat voter fraud...but you still will not agree with me. I'll post it here knowing it won't help...just cuz I believe in backing up what I say

Quote

York: When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots

In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.
So...no Democrat voter fraud...no Al Franken...no 0bamacare. Couple that with their concerted efforts to both dismiss the danger of fraud, and prevent ANY increased scrutiny. I can't think of any good reason to trust the motives or intent of these people.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#23 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,137 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:18 AM

View Postscherzo, on 03 November 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

View PostNick, on 03 November 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

View Postscherzo, on 03 November 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Quote

Most people do not object to requiring some form of identification at the polls.   What people do object to is a well funded, coordinated effort on the far right...
Look at that... 74% of the country are on the "far right".

He just said that most people (including myself) don't object to requiring ID.  Your link confirms as much.  The only thing I object to is pushing new requirements through right before a major election.  Phase it in by notifying and giving people ample opportunity to acquire whatever IDs they need, and you'll have no argument from me.
He DID say most people don't object to requiring ID. He then said they DO object to a coordinated effort to make sure that happens. That makes absolutely no sense.

I don't mean to put words in Scott's mouth, but I think he may have meant "...due to a coordinated effort to make sure that happens a short time before a major election."

Quote

As for "phasing it in"...the objections to voter ID law have been making the rounds for a very long time. In fact my link is to an article that appeared back near the beginning of August.

While I agree it should have been a requirement long ago, the fact is, we have a lot of people in situations where they don't have an ID, never have, and absolutely no idea what they need to do to get one.

In most states I've lived, it's been a short visit to the DMV to get an ID or license renewed...  but what are the requirements to get one for the first time ever in your state, Scherzo?

#24 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:28 AM

Note that the link to "evidence of devastating" voter fraud by Democrats takes you to discussion of a book by far right cook John Fund, who writes books with Rush Limbaugh, is a member of the heritage foundation, and apparently once impregnated the daughter of his girlfriend.  

Sounds like a bastion of journalistic integrity.  Can't imagine why the "lamestream media" isn't' taking him seriously.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#25 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:57 AM

View PostBklnScott, on 04 November 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

Note that the link to "evidence of devastating" voter fraud by Democrats takes you to discussion of a book by far right cook John Fund, who writes books with Rush Limbaugh, is a member of the heritage foundation, and apparently once impregnated the daughter of his girlfriend.  

Sounds like a bastion of journalistic integrity.  Can't imagine why the "lamestream media" isn't' taking him seriously.

I have not checked the link, and really have not been following the thread or the context of it.
But here you go, claiming that the "devastating evidence" is a discussion of a book.
You do not list a single matter of the discussion, you simply smear the reputation of the author.
And maybe he deserves that.
But pointing out that he is a cad who knocked up his girlfriend's daughter does not refute a single claim he makes.
His involvement with Heritage does not disprove his claims either.
Nor does writing a book with Rushbo.

So what argument are you even making?

Dem election fraud has happened plenty.
The Battle of Athens is an oldie but goldie.
The Kennedy/Nixon election is another.
And the Bush/Gore Florida recount can qualify on many grounds.

I would never call the National Enquirer a bastion of journalistic integrity, but they broke the Edwards sex scandal.
Integrity is a personal standard of conduct, not an indicator of truth or falsehood.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#26 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:29 AM

But here are some fun links:

http://www.marionsta...?nclick_check=1

http://denver.cbsloc...aigners-at-csu/

http://myfox8.com/20...rong-candidate/
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#27 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:11 AM

View PostDarthMarley, on 04 November 2012 - 12:57 AM, said:

But pointing out that he is a cad who knocked up his girlfriend's daughter does not refute a single claim he makes.
His involvement with Heritage does not disprove his claims either.
Nor does writing a book with Rushbo.

So what argument are you even making?

Thanks for asking, DM.  My argument is that John Fund is a partisan hack who has no credibility on this or any topic -- except perhaps how to be a smug, mendacious, womanizing, hypocritical a$$h*le.  

Much like "Rushbo" himself in that regard.  

Fund's job is literally to make sh*t up so that the rest of the far right hackosphere can repeat it, citing him as the source.  

Nobody refuted the claims Baghdad Bob was making either.  Why?  Because he, too, had no credibility.  

These allegations and a whole host of others (e.g., Benghazi--Worse Than Watergate) appear solely in the alternate universe of right-wing "news," where the world looks very different than the one we actually live in.  It is not a fact based world over there.  Why should it be?  Their favorite president, George W Bush, famously ran an administration that was not fact based... And that worked out all right, didn't it?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#28 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:44 AM

DM, if you want to play links, note that mine are to sources like the Washington Post, Businessweek, NY Daily News.

But none of these -- my links or yours -- are about PEOPLE VOTING FRAUDULENTLY, which is the supposedly epic crisis voter ID laws have been created to counter.  


Your links are about voting machines changing votes for Romney to Obama (and one about pizza being improperly offered as an inducement to early voting).  Mine are about a widening FBI probe into a Republican-owned firm that appears to have been registering dead people (most likely to meet quota, not because they are planning to have dead people vote -- at least that's my assumption), tearing up registration forms if they come from Democrats, and other such shenanigans.  

From the NY Daily News article:

Quote


Strategic Allied Consulting is under criminal investigation for suspected voter registration fraud in several states.



The company’s owner, Republican strategist Nathan Sproul, has been accused of similar crimes in the past. But recent allegations have forced the Republican Party — who paid Strategic Allied Consulting millions to register voters in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia — to sever ties with the firm.



Strategic Allied Consulting allegedly registered dead people, altered real forms and created fake ones, reported The New York Times.


Read more: http://www.nydailyne...0#ixzz2BGeu6V7j


(And here are a couple from CBSNews and WaPo about  Florida Governor Rick Scott's voter roll purge ...  http://www.cbsnews.c...oter-purge/  

Florida Voter Purge Explained )

Note, however, that none of these links -- none of mine, and perhaps more to the point, none of yours -- evidence the behavior that voter ID laws are supposedly meant to counter: people showing up to the polls, telling the poll worker they are someone else, and voting as that other person.  And that's because it hardly ever happens -- and indeed, even if it was happening in a large, organized way, there is a loophole in the template for the voter ID law big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through: absentee ballots.  

Anywho...

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#29 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:01 AM

Quote

Thanks for asking, DM.  My argument is that John Fund is a partisan hack who has no credibility on this or any topic -- except perhaps how to be a smug, mendacious, womanizing, hypocritical a$$h*le.
You're missing the point. Just because you don't LIKE someone, doesn't mean their information on a particular subject is inaccurate. As a counterpoint to the allegation of voter fraud, that hardly even qualifies as an argument. The professional Stalinists over at Media Matters did their level best to debunk the findings of the group Fund cited in his book. But the fact remains that there were several convictions for fraud, and "found" votes enabled Franken's ascendency under some of the most suspicious circumstances imaginable.

Quote

These allegations and a whole host of others (e.g., Benghazi--Worse Than Watergate) appear solely in the alternate universe of right-wing "news," where the world looks very different than the one we actually live in.  It is not a fact based world over there.  Why should it be?  Their favorite president, George W Bush, famously ran an administration that was not fact based... And that worked out all right, didn't it?
If you think George W Bush is the right's "favorite" President,(or even in the top 10)you don't read or hear much of what we actually say. If you think Watergate is even in the same LEAGUE with the dead body strewn clusterf**k that is Benghazi, we do indeed...exist in alternate realities.

For the record...few things piss-off the hard left more than FACTS. A "fact-based" world couldn't possibly excuse an administration whose incompetence caused the death of an American ambassador, or vote for a POTUS who deliberately deceived the public about who was responsible.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#30 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:20 AM

View Postscherzo, on 04 November 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

If you think Watergate is even in the same LEAGUE with the dead body strewn clusterf**k that is Benghazi, we do indeed...exist in alternate realities.


If you think the tragic deaths of 4 foreign service officers in a war torn country compares to the following, then you're right: we do indeed live in alternate realities.

Quote

The Watergate scandal was a political scandal that occurred in the United States in the 1970s as a result of the June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and the Nixon administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement. The scandal eventually led to the resignation of Richard Nixon, the President of the United States, on August 9, 1974, the only resignation of a U.S. President. The scandal also resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction and incarceration of 43 people, including dozens of Nixon's top administration officials.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) connected cash found on the burglars to a slush fundused by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, a fundraising group for the Nixon campaign.[1][2] In July 1973, as evidence mounted against the president's staff, including testimony provided by former staff members in an investigation conducted by the Senate Watergate Committee, it was revealed that President Nixon had a tape-recording system in his offices and he had recorded many conversations.[3][4] Recordings from these tapes implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up the break-in.[2][5] After a protracted series of bitter court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the president had to hand over the tapes to government investigators; he ultimately complied.
Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and a strong possibility of a conviction in the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.[6][7] His successor, Gerald Ford, then issued a pardon to Nixon.


Why did Ford pardon him?  Because otherwise Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of America, would have been indicted, tried, convicted and sent to jail.  

That you could compare this unprecedented constitutional crisis to 4 tragic deaths of foreign service officers posted to a dangerous, war torn country just boggles the mind.  Then again, the far right has always had trouble understanding why what Nixon did was so wrong, and why it took the Federal government and therefore the republic to the brink of destruction.  Say what you will about Benghazi -- and agian, I call it tragic -- but it did not and does not threaten the existence of the republic.  

Indeed, the guy who ran Nixon's criminal gan, G Gordon Liddy, remains a hero to the far right... despite his admitted criminality for which he was tried, convicted and served time.  

That might explain the disconnect.  

http://en.wikipedia....G._Gordon_Liddy

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#31 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:31 AM

^^^Well, I think the difference there is that four people are DEAD, brushing it off by saying they knew the risks doesn't make it any less worse, especially if they could have been prevented.  Still, one is a bad judgement call the other is actively breaking the law.   And since Nixon was willing to sink that low one can only imagine how many deaths would have resulted from his decisions.   And that was forty some odd years ago and this is now and Obama's decision making still affects us today and he stands a chance to be get another term.   Bringing up the past isn't going to win over anyone, it's "neener neener, you have crappy people on your side too" stuff.  What matters now is that Romney is a worse choice than Obama, and no matter how much you bring up Benghazi, it isn't going to do a damn bit of good.

I like how the Rolling Stone article described Romney "Would you vote for the guy from Office Space who made you explain why you should get to keep your job?"

Edited by LiberalBob, 04 November 2012 - 11:33 AM.


#32 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:38 AM

Hey Bob... Thousands upon thousands of people died needlessly during Nixon's time in the White House, both in Southeast Asia and here at home.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#33 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:41 AM

View PostBklnScott, on 04 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Bob... Thousands upon thousands of people died needlessly during Nixon's time in the White House, both in Southeast Asia and here at home.

For the WIN.  Yeah, I thought about that after I left the OT.  So it's really a moot point, Nixon sucked, period.

#34 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:08 PM

Quote

If you think the tragic deaths of 4 foreign service officers in a war torn country...
:howling:
That's AWESOME

Y'know Scott a least most conservatives will acknowledge wrongdoing on the part of Richard Nixon. In fact he's routinely ridiculed for his personal flaws, and left of center policy record. But as I've said before, politics is not our religion. The hard left's inability to detect even nominal flaws in their hero however, denotes a cult-like devotion to the cause.
To anti-right, Watergate is leagues worse than Benghazi...because a Republican administration was responsible. Watergate would be worse than 0bama slaughtering kittens in the Oval Office...for the same reason. Pretending the murdered Americans in Libya were merely victims of tragic circumstance, is just an insult to the intelligence of the un-indoctrinated.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#35 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:16 PM

Quote

I like how the Rolling Stone article described Romney "Would you vote for the guy from Office Space who made you explain why you should get to keep your job?"
I guess that explains why the ass-clowns at Rolling Stone aren't asking 0bama to explain why HE should keep his job.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#36 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:37 PM

Quote

To anti-right, Watergate is leagues worse than Benghazi...because a Republican administration was responsible

No, it's leagues worse because the president of the United States was caught directing criminal acts designed to rig the election (and maintaining a slush fund to pay for it) which is an existential threat to the constitution and the republic for which it stands.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#37 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:53 PM

View Postscherzo, on 04 November 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

For the record...few things piss-off the hard left more than FACTS. A "fact-based" world couldn't possibly excuse an administration whose incompetence caused the death of an American ambassador, or vote for a POTUS who deliberately deceived the public about who was responsible.

I hate to ever say, "but your side did it too", but in this case I'm going to because the FACTS and the difference in magnitude are so stark.  Mind you I am not blaming Obama's mistakes and incompetence on Bush.  I think Obama owns his 4 years.  I think he inherited a bad situation, but everything he did to fix it [or not] he owns.

But, the Bush Administration's record can be used to argue a case for not putting the GOP back in charge, especially when some of the same Neo-Cons that advised Bush are on the Romney team, and since you bring up voting, under these circumstances the Bush record is relevant.  

GW Bush lied us into a decade long war that killed thousands of our soldiers and hundred's of thousands of civilians in Iraq.  But, the way you tell it, this would be just a footnote in history.  The right wing radio and TV would deny it even happened.

Yet Benghazi [even if Obama did make dreadful mistakes, a point I am not conceding,  but even if he did] is not a dire enough situation to put the reins of government back into the same hands [and same advisers] that brought us Iraq, warrantless wiretapping of US Citizens, The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, the outing of Valerie Plame, the incompetence of FEMA in Hurricane Katrina, the increase in the debt, Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Abu Ghraib, Libby, you name it.  

Make no mistake, any time a US citizen is killed it is of concern.  I'm not minimizing the deaths in Benghazi, but to hear the right tell it, it is worse than Watergate?  Are you kidding me?  Watergate wasn't even as bad as the Bush administration, and not enough time has elapsed for anyone to forget how bad it really was.  Maybe in 2016 people will have forgotten how reckless, and incompetent, and fatal the Bush administration was, but not in 2012,   And we should vote for a Republican with the same damn advisers in many cases that brought us the GW Bush administration?  

So, you go on your Benghazi rant.  You go on and on about how bad Obama is.  Me, I know how to judge magnitude when it comes to incompetence.  I know how to do a body count.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#38 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:54 PM

View Postscherzo, on 04 November 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

For the record...few things piss-off the hard left more than FACTS. A "fact-based" world couldn't possibly excuse an administration whose incompetence caused the death of an American ambassador, or vote for a POTUS who deliberately deceived the public about who was responsible.
Oh, right. Because the hard right just loves FACTS. Until those facts roundly disprove their entire argument, at which point they're happy to ignore them and just keep ranting as if their opponents have told them that they're wrong because Obama rocks and George Bush is a poopie-head.

Or did I miss the follow-up arguments in which the Benghazi truthers explained why it was a "deliberate deception" to provide the American people with an account based on the latest information from the CIA, which to this day has not been wholly discounted as a possibility? Or maybe the argument is still "Of course this was a terrorist attack planned well in advance! Anyone with common sense can see that!" which might qualify as "facts" in fringe right-wing circles, but not in anything resembling the real world.

Edited by Dev F, 04 November 2012 - 12:54 PM.


#39 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:47 PM

View PostBklnScott, on 04 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Bob... Thousands upon thousands of people died needlessly during Nixon's time in the White House, both in Southeast Asia and here at home.

So, you are saying that since people died in a war Democrats started (to appease the French) Nixon is responsible?
Is that what you mean to say?
Do you really believe that or is it just an irrational hate filled screed?

People have died under every president.
Does that make them responsible?
And what president was in office when the Viet nam war ended?
Or was Carter or Obama magically responsible for that?
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#40 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:03 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 04 November 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 04 November 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Bob... Thousands upon thousands of people died needlessly during Nixon's time in the White House, both in Southeast Asia and here at home.

So, you are saying that since people died in a war Democrats started (to appease the French) Nixon is responsible?
Is that what you mean to say?
Do you really believe that or is it just an irrational hate filled screed?

Yes.  Nixon needlessly prolonged the war gaining nothing but thousands of more Americans in body bags.  Meanwhile, he was directing a gang of criminals to rig the election in his favor.  

Quote

People have died under every president.
Does that make them responsible?

Oh yes.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Nate Silver, Elections, 2012, 538 blog, NYTimes

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users